Laserfiche WebLink
City of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. 1719 <br />b) The applicant and previous owners have receivc-d tax <br />benefits from the legal combination of Lots =:, 4 and `; <br />feet of Lot ''=. <br />c) Lot '--I is ta:;ed on an incremental basis, not as a <br />build&(ble lot. <br />`;. It is the opinion of the City that the strict <br />enforcement of the performance standards of the subdivision <br />regulations, of the City will preserve well -sounded <br />environmental standards in future development of 1akeshore <br />property within the City. <br />6. Variances to the minimum requirements for a lot as set <br />forth in the zoning chapter of the Municipal Code would be <br />in complete conflict with the intent of the Comprehensive <br />Flan, the intent of the LR-1C zoning district and the intent <br />of the subdivision regulations of the Ci:.. <br />7. To approve lot area and lot width variances noncurrent <br />with subdivision applications would establish a negative <br />precedent in similar reviews. <br />e. Minnesota Courts find the application of the law as <br />relevant in decision making as the intent of the written <br />law. If the City was to grant variances in this cane, the <br />City would be bound to apply the same standards to other <br />applicants or be accussed in a Court of acting arbitrary and <br />capricious or denying an individual of equal protection <br />under- the law. <br />9. In review of the factual findings noted in item 3, the <br />applicant may best serve his purpose by asking the City to <br />amend its official map rather than e:.pect the City to place <br />itself in the politic of having to approve 43 similar <br />variance applications. <br />F'C.ge 4 o+ <br />